Category: Benefits

Benefits / Tax

The Special Timing Rule for Taxation of Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

For an employee who is a U.S. taxpayer, both the employer and the employee are liable for a portion of Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes (collectively referred to as “FICA” taxes) on the employee’s compensation. Employers are liable for withholding and remitting both the employer and the employee portions of FICA taxes, which typically occurs at the time the compensation is received by the employee, which his known as the “General Timing Rule.” However, when dealing with awards of nonqualified deferred compensation (“NQDC”) to U.S. taxpayers, a Special Timing Rule (outlined in Treas. Reg. §31.3121(v)(2)-1) may apply.  Under the Special Timing Rule, FICA taxes are owed when the employee becomes vested in...

Benefits / Tax

Canadian Compensation Arrangements – When Do I Need U.S. Counsel?

Imagine a Canadian company adopts a deferred share unit plan (DSU Plan) for its directors.  At the time the plan is adopted, the company does not have the plan reviewed by U.S. counsel, because none of their directors reside in the U.S.  It is not until several years later that the company learns that one of its directors, despite living in Canada, has dual citizenship with the U.S.  Because the typical form of Canadian DSU Plan will not comply with U.S. tax laws governing deferred compensation, particularly U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (Section 409A), the company has quite a mess on its hands.  You can read our prior articles on common payment timing issues...

Benefits / Tax

DSU Plans May Run Afoul of U.S. Deferral Election Timing Rules Resulting in Adverse U.S. Tax Treatment

A Canadian company adopting a deferred share unit plan (DSU plan) for its directors must consider U.S. tax implications for U.S. taxpayers.  It is important to remember that U.S. citizens and U.S. residents for tax purposes (including green card holders) are taxed on worldwide income, regardless of where they reside.  As such, participation by a U.S. director, including an expat or holder of dual citizenship, could result in significant adverse tax consequences under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, as a typical Canadian DSU plan often runs afoul of Section 409A.  In a prior article, DSU Plans Require Careful Review to Avoid Adverse U.S. Tax Treatment, common payment timing violations of U.S....

Benefits / Tax

Reviewing Compensation Arrangements for Employees Subject to U.S. Income Tax Before Year-End Could Avoid Costly Tax Penalties

We have written about this in the past [here], but the message bears repeating each year. It is easy to overlook that employment agreements, change-in-control agreements, and severance agreements with U.S. taxpayers frequently contain provisions that subject them to U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (“Section 409A”), and failure to comply can result in onerous tax penalties. However, to the extent that rights under such agreements are not yet vested, it may be possible to correct them before year-end without penalty. Even if rights under an agreement are vested, in some cases correction is available with payment of reduced penalties under IRS correction programs. It is important to remember that U.S. residents, and U.S....

Benefits / Securities

A Reminder to Track Rule 701 Equity Awards to U.S. Residents

Canadian companies relying on Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933 to exempt their U.S. awards of stock options and other types of compensatory equity (such as RSUs and PSUs), need to track on an ongoing basis the amount of grants being made in the United States. If they anticipate that the aggregate dollar amount of the awards, calculated under Rule 701, will exceed US$5 million in any 12-month period, they must also prepare and deliver Rule 701-mandated disclosure documents. Just this month, the SEC announced a financial settlement with a privately-held fintech company, Credit Karma, Inc., relating to Credit Karma’s failure to provide stock option holders with the financial statements, risk...

Benefits / Securities

Common U.S. Securities Problems with Canadian Stock-Based Compensation Plans

We are frequently asked to review Canadian companies’ stock option, restricted share unit (RSU), performance share unit (PSU), deferred share unit (DSU), and other stock-based compensation plans for U.S. securities law purposes, because awards are expected to be made to U.S. residents. For companies that are cross-listed and file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the intention is typically to register the underlying securities by filing a Form S-8 with the SEC. For companies that do not file SEC reports – whether publicly traded in Canada or privately held – the intention is typically to rely on the exemption provided by Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933 and exemptions...

Benefits / Tax

Tax Reform to Impact Compensation Deduction Claimed by Foreign Private Issuers

While the recently enacted U.S. tax reform legislation did not overhaul executive compensation to the extent proposed in early forms of the bill, Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code was dramatically revised in a way that affects Canadian companies that file reports with the SEC and that employ, or may in the future employ, executives in the United States. Previously, Section 162(m) limited the amount of compensation that an SEC reporting company that was a “domestic issuer” for securities law purposes, or its subsidiaries, could deduct with respect to its most senior executives. Important for many of our Canadian clients, we believe that under the rule changes, U.S. tax deductions for...

Benefits / Tax

Common U.S. Tax Withholding and Reporting Errors with Respect to Certain RSUs

A Canadian company (the employer) historically has not issued equity-based awards to employees of its U.S. subsidiaries, but it now is considering doing so. Past posts have addressed potential U.S. income tax pitfalls and the need for careful review of the plan and award agreements prior to the grant of restricted stock units (RSUs) and deferred share units (DSUs) to individuals who are subject to U.S. federal income tax on compensatory income. You can read the DSU blog entry here and the RSU blog entry here. Let’s assume careful review and drafting have addressed potential U.S. tax issues in terms of the written documents. What are common mistakes that can arise in administering...

Benefits / Securities / Tax

Unexpected Risks of Early Exercise Incentive Stock Options

Canadian companies and their outside counsel occasionally ask about the ability to grant early exercise incentive stock options (“ISOs”) to limit the impact of the U.S. alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) to their U.S. employees. However, due to fairly counterintuitive U.S. federal tax regulations, structuring options in this manner may expose optionees to negative tax consequences in the event of a disqualifying disposition (defined below). This post reviews the tax effects of early exercise ISOs and compares the tax results to alternative structures. Early Exercise ISO Tax Consequences With any early exercise option, the optionee is permitted to initially exercise their entire stock option by paying the full option exercise price, but will receive...

Benefits / Securities

State Securities Laws – Granting Options and Equity Comp in the United States

A Canadian company that proposes to grant stock options or other types of equity compensation to persons in the United States must comply with the securities laws of the state in which the recipient is located, unless the type of equity being issued (e.g., the underlying common shares, in the case of options to purchase common shares) is listed on a “national securities exchange” such as the NYSE, Nasdaq, and NYSE MKT. This means that private companies, Canadian public companies that are not listed in the United States, and Canadian companies that are listed in the United States only in over-the-counter markets such as the OTCQX, OTCQB, or Pink Sheets, are required to...